Logotherapy: Humanism In Psychiatry

Just a few quick thoughts. Firstly, I am surprised you read this book and did not think it fit to remark on how surviving the Holocaust affected Frankl in particular (would he have written this book without it?) and the collective consciousness of psychiatry in general.
Secondly, I do not agree with this:
"In traditional psychotherapy, the question of meaning in life is not taken at its face value but is seen as mere rationalization of unconscious psychodynamics. It is not seen that if a person has found a meaning in life, he is prepared to suffer or even die for it".
How do you define traditional psychotherapy? and I am not sure what you mean by rationalization of unconscious psychodynamics.
You also seem to have confused in your writing, though I am sure not in your thoughts, the difference between predominantly psychodynamic schools at the start of the article, and predominantly behavioural schools at the end of the article (when you talk of conditioning). It does not appear therefore that you are comparing like with like.

Re: # 1; Doctor nb, your ear please.

All this talk about "the meaning of life" is quite appetising, really. I remember reading the "Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Admas that I read as a teenager.

According to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a race of vast hyper-intelligent, pan-dimensional beings constructed the second greatest computer in all of time and space, Deep Thought, to calculate The Ultimate Answer to The Great Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Distracted by a demarcation dispute with two philosophers, a "simple answer" is requested. After seven and a half million years of computing cycles, Deep Thought's answer is 42.

“ "I think the problem is that the question was too broadly based..."
"Forty two?!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"

"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."

I think it is important at times to wonder 'what that question is?' that we wish to know the answer to!

Re: # 2

correction.....please omit "that i read" from the second line......

apologies

#1 – thanks for reminding readers that Frankl was a holocaust survivor. However, I must add that there will be hundred of other things about Frankl and any thinker of that stature that cannot be covered in a short article. My hope is that the article will generate enough interest in a reader who so incline to read the original work and know, of his or her own accord, more of Frankl. My response to the book in this short article was a spontaneous response and I am no apologist of one or other kind warily thinking to cover this or that aspect. Secondly, neither I claim to be a scholar of one or other sort indulging myself in vain dialogues as a pastime. I felt deeply about the book and the pain, and heroic triumph over the pain It is true his work is outcome of the holocaust experience, but that particular holocaust is not the only tragedy in the world and the Frankl is not the only one who saw the triumph of spirit over utter despair, though he is the only one who formulated these ideas in psychiatry in such a ‘meaningful’ way. It is the universality of his ideas which encompasses all the ages, races, spaces and times which matters utmost to me, though recognition of the holocaust and all the holocausts is fundamental too.

In this article, I compared all other schools of thoughts in psychology with ‘logotherapy’ in one broad stroke just to emphasize the difference of approach between ‘meaning based’ and ‘not so meaning based’ psychiatry. Further categorization to ‘psychodynamic’ and ‘behavioral’ schools of thought won’t serve any purpose in this article.
‘rationalization of unconscious psychodynamics’ = non- transcendent formulation of ‘being’.
Having said that, nb, your interest and perceptivity was refreshing.

#2 – “The heart has reasons that reason does not know.� This is mantra for anyone to repeat “seven and a half million years� to understand what “the biggest question of life� is. Though, there is no guarantee that still “42� comes as an answer like Deep Thought’s … because thought is calculating, and knowledge does not come just from calculations.

The only reason I mentioned the fact he was a Holocaust survivor is that from what I have read, it was that which led him to think the way he did, and it was his own experiences, as well as reflecting on how other people did survive seems to have led directly to his thoughts on the will to meaning. Later writers have claimed he may not have spent as much time in Auschwitz ( I cannot remember whether it was Auschwitz or another camp) as he worte. That doesn't take away from his achievements, first in surviving and secondly in processing his thoughts from his experience so effectively.
I also still think that dynamic and cognitive/behavioural schools are very different, and cannot really be subsumed under the same heading when you are comparing them with another school of thought.
But I take your point on board, that you are not looking at this from a scholarly point of view and I appreciate your open mindedness.

Re: # 4; quin

Re: “The heart has reasons that reason does not know.�

If I am correct, isn't that Pascal.......he was another very confused individual to say the least

God you psychics complicate matters sometimes!!

Re: # 6 akcheema
As you ‘credit’ others for causing confusions, may you try to figure out who exactly is responsible for the confusion in your own use of word ‘psychics’ (obviously, in place of psychiatrists or psychologist or God knows what you may have meant ...)

Re: # 5 point well taken ...

Re: # 6; quin

sorry I thought they were very similar in principal, even though may appear different in reality

what do I know eh? don't take it too personally

Re: # 9 akcheema
ha ha, I do appreciate your sense of humour, eh!

quin, by replying to my posts you forced me to actually read what you wrote!

[Famous Physician Paracelsus says "Disease originates in the realm of nature but healing come from the realm of spirit".]

If my understanding is correct, this Paracelsus dude existed sometime in the 15th century (I could be wrong though). I wouldn't hang my hat on what he might have said; that doesn't mean I don't respect him for what he was - an essencial component of a continuum that is enlightenment of the human mind

Take Darwin, for instance; his modern day critics work enthusiastically to find 'flaws' in his work; an apparent flaw leads them to 'contradict - in their disturbed minds' the theory of evolution. What must be taken into account is the ongoing 'evolution' in our understanding of such things, although the foundation may remain intact (emphasis n 'may' here)

Psychology/Psychiatry was essentially an 'observational' art; observing behaviour patterns, interactions etc, people came to certain conclusions and 'therapies' were based on the conclusions of such 'observations'.

However, now we live in the era where increasingly we find biochemical (not to mention genetic) explanations for more and more of these 'disorders of the mind' and increasingly they transform into 'the diseases of the brain' instead. The point is what used to be 'abstract' is increasingly becoming more 'concrete'.

This is an area in evolution still; I wonder what the next 50 years or so would bring.

I don't know what Dr nb thinks about all this rambling; she chose to ignore my previous posts addressed to her!

Kind regards

I didn't know what to say, akcheema, please don't take it personally. All of medicine is an art as well as a science.
And you are right, people will laugh at all of us in 50 years time.

Re: # 12; nb

I wasn't having a go nb; I just wrote some gobbldegook any way.

It was kind enough of both you and quin to take the time to respond

Wow, I am in some company here. What a pleasure.
Can’t agree more on akcheema’s take on 'evolution' in our understanding� part, however, understanding more concretely does not make a dent in the nature of eternal questions we try to deal with.

Regarding the question of illness and healing, the hope that by knowing brain functions more concretely (or genes more thoroughly) we may be able to solve the problems of mental health more effectively may still be understood in Frankl’s terms by realizing that an important corollary of Frankl’s work may be seen as just NOT to get trapped in that sort of reasoning.

Knowing that atom consists of further parts, and further parts consist of still further parts does not bring us any closer to the true nature of reality. Similarly, knowing all the mechanism of brain and mapping of all the genes does not bring us any closer to answer why we are here. Secondly, our understanding at a more concrete level does not change the fact that brain is still the grey matter that ultimately is part of nature and mind may transcend nature. So what "this Paracelsus dude" said eons ago may sound archaic as new tools of inquiry has given us new diction, it still is fundamentally spot on.

Re: # 14; quin
(knowing all the mechanism of brain and mapping of all the genes does not bring us any closer to answer why we are here.)

Look, I am off to bed; you wanted to know why we are here (wherever "here" maybe) and you decided to come to Chowk....well done!

Since I am tired, I'll leave you with a quote by the great evolutionary biologist SJ Gould; here goes:

"We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a 'higher' answer---but none exists."

[Stephen Jay Gould, quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt, by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996]

A fresh breath of air Quin.
By your repeated response to all posts.I have rarely seen evidence of a writer reading interacts.Sorry n.b.di di
i never thaught Psychiatrist as 'real' medical doctor .Confining one self to mind ..not even brain which is area of neurologist ..Much of Society even the enlightened West doesnot actualy make poicy or judiciary acknowkledging it .I have not seen a realy ramand on basis of Insanity defence .On the othere hand sociologist anthropologist historian do.Who dont matter